Lane v. Planned Parenthood et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
LUANITA LANE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) Civil Action No. 25-CV-13741-AK
v. )
)
PLANNED PARENTHOOD, GREATER )
BOSTON HEALTH CENTER, and )
FELICIA GREEN, )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KELLEY, D.J.
Plaintiff Luanita Lane, who is self-represented, brings this action in which she alleges
that Defendants gave her “babies to another woman to produce” following an abortion. [Dkt. 1 at
4]. Lane has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. 2]. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the in forma pauperis motion and this action is
DISMISSED.
I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. 2].
II. REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT
When a plaintiff seeks to file a complaint without prepayment of the filing fee, prior to
the issuance of any summons the Court conducts a preliminary review of the complaint. The
Court may dismiss the complaint upon a determination that the pleading is malicious or
frivolous, seeks monetary damages from a party that is immune from such relief, or fails to state
Case 1:25-cv-13741-AK Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). As used in this context,
“frivolous” does not refer to the subjective intent of a plaintiff. Axcella Bldg. Realty Tr, v.
Thompson, No. 23-CV-40151-DHH, 2024 WL 474539, at *2 n.2 (D. Mass. Jan. 25, 2024).
Regardless of a plaintiff’s belief of the importance of her lawsuit, “in legal parlance, a complaint
is ‘frivolous’ if it ‘lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Id. (quoting Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). Further, the Court may consider any jurisdictional issues.
See, e.g., Sinapi v. R.I. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 910 F.3d 544, 549 (1st Cir. 2018) (“A district court
generally has the obligation, when there is any question, to confirm that it has subject matter
jurisdiction prior to considering the merits of the underlying controversy.”). In conducting this
review, the Court liberally construes the complaint because Lane is representing herself. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Lane prepared her Complaint [Dkt. 1] using a standardized form offered by the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the convenience of pro se parties. Under
the heading, “Basis for Jurisdiction,” the plaintiff is asked to identify if the claim is a federal
question or if diversity of citizenship is the basis for jurisdiction. If the basis for jurisdiction is a
federal question, the plaintiff is asked to “[l]ist the specific federal statutes, federal treaties,
and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case.” [Id. at 3].
Under the heading “Statement of Claim,” the litigant is instructed to “[w]rite a short and plain
statement of the claim,” “[s]tat[ing] as briefly as possible the facts showing that [the] plaintiff is
entitled to the damages or other relief sought.” [Id. at 4]. The litigant is directed to “[s]tate how
each defendant was involved and what each defendant did that caused the plaintiff harm or
violated the plaintiff’s rights, including the dates and places of that involvement or conduct.”
[Id.]
Case 1:25-cv-13741-AK Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Turning to Lane’s Complaint, she failed to identify any federal statute, treaty, or
provision of the United States Constitution that is at issue in the case. [Id. at 3]. Similarly,
Lane’s statement of her claim lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. According to Lane, “I was
told I am a legal population provider, and I had 9 abortion[s] at [a] Planned Parenthood clinic, I
was told all of my 9 abortion children has been produced, and birth, and being used to make the
population in this state and other states.” [Id. at 4]. Lane has failed to identify the source of
jurisdiction and her pleading does not set forth a claim that has an arguable basis in law or in
fact. Further, in light of the nature of the claim asserted, the Court finds that amendment of the
Complaint would be futile. Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina, 747 F.3d 15, 23 (1st
Cir. 2014) (explaining that sua sponte dismissal is appropriate only when it is clear that the
plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby orders:
1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 2] is GRANTED.
2. This action is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2026 /s/ Angel Kelley_____________
Hon. Angel Kelley
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-13741-AK Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3